On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 01:24:04PM +0800, zou lunkai wrote: > >+check(NaN != NaN); // TODO: this seems a bogus check, the check > should actually return false > > confirmed, should return false. > > For swf>=5, The observed results here are: > > trace(NaN == NaN); //true > trace(NaN >= NaN); //true > trace(NaN <= NaN); //true > trace(NaN > NaN); //undefined > trace(NaN < NaN); //undefined > trace(NaN != NaN); //false > > Yes, I can add these to the testsuite. But I guess we might have > different "observed results" with different PP.
We might use a PP_COMPATIBILITY define or just take the results closest to the ECMA 262 and document the differences in player in Gnash manual page. I like the latter more. NaN == NaN and NaN != NaN might need to both return false, but ECMA 262 says that A != B should be equivalent to ! (A == B) which would be contracdictory in this case. --strk; _______________________________________________ Gnash-commit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-commit
